I don't know "what he knows about software" but he apparently knows that the
term "PC" refers to the 90% of the desktop industry that was once referred to
as "IBM-compatible" and now by the familir "Wintel".

The Mac is not a "PC" and therefore I don't believe that he made a mistake.
(PC is in quotes because it refers to the common definition of PC not the
Webster's definition of each individual word).

PS: Ironically you now can't even buy a G3 Mac without Virtual PC or a RAM
upgrade!

You make a very good point about 'boosting the alternatives.'
Did you know that you can still buy brand-new Atari clones?
They run on 68040 and 68060 CPUs, just like the brand-new
Amigas one can buy. Then there are the places where you can
buy a DEC Alpha machine with either NT or Linux, and so on and
so on.

You're right -- Nader made a mistake. It could be mere
hyperbole to make his point, but it was a mistake nonetheless
and one can wonder why he made it, and whether he made it
deliberately. And if he made it deliberately, figuring the
average consumer wouldn't know (and since it takes research
to know, he's probably right -- why should everyone research
alternatives as much as hardcore geeks like me? :>), then
what is his real agenda. To destroy rather than inform?

I spent a few hours yesterday listening to the Real Audio transcripts of
a 2-day workshop Nader et al put on to discuss Microsoft and its plans.
I was disappointed to find that there was not a clear concensus among
the speakers about Microsoft's business behavior. In particular, many
examples of Microsoft's business behaviors that were given to be "bad"
were IMHO simply good or innovative business practices.

For example, one speaker (Novell CEO I think) spoke of a meeting at
Microsoft where they were trying to figure out how to compete in the
financial services market. During the brainstorming session, one MS
employee said "Well, why don't we just buy a bank?". The group
eventually discarded the idea, but only after seriously considering it
as a possible route. The conference speaker jokingly said that if anyone
at his company proposed that, they would be considered nuts. (My
conclusion from that segment was that I would much rather work for
Microsoft, which isn't afraid of radical new ideas). This sentiment was
echoed by other speakers who seemed to want Microsoft to state what
"business it was in", and stick to only that business. I don't
understand that thinking -- why should any company root itself to one
sector of commerce?

I think the idea of a Microsoft owned bank is great, and would
undoubtedly produce financial services and products current financial
institutions could not develop. I would get worried if Microsoft was the
_only_ bank around, especially if they then restriced merchants from
only using Microsoft-produced credit cards. But it isn't clear to me
that Microsoft's actions thus far have really made things so bad for
consumers. Most consumers benefit from the MS OS software standard. The
Windows95 interface is on paar with the Mac. NT is stable. Pentium boxes
are fast and cheap. IE is an excellent browser. Microsoft's Java
implementation is still fast and stable. And if Plug-And-Play irons out
its bugs, a MS hardware standard could arise as well, allowing for a
still better user experience. And as you point out, the Mac is still a
viable option, and there are other -- admittedly specialized -- OSes
like Linux and Be.

All of this has left me wondering about the justification of antitrust
laws in the first place. If I can afford to undercut my competition's
prices and thereby drive them out of the market, why stop me? If the
answer is "because we want products to compete based on
price-independent merit", then we should make all software cost $50. If
the answer is "because it isn't fair", then we should write out these
rules of fairness in detail, and make all businesses and consumers agree
and stick to them. I haven't seen them yet.

I've been thinking about this for a while now but haven't found much
background information. Most web pages cover specific details of
lawsuits. I have been unable to find any good descriptions of these laws
(e.g. do they define "predatory business practices" or is that
interpreted on a case-by-base basis), their history and constitutional
justification, and how they have been applied to technology markets. If
you come across any succinct rationales for the antitrust laws, esp.
with respect to the modern (information) economy, could you please post
them on DaveNet? Alternately, if you have interested friends in
sociolegal organizations like the EFF, perhaps they would be willing to
write a guest DaveNet piece.

I've asked myself those questions about Nader's relationship to the automotive industry for years. According to many reports I've seen, Ralph Nader allegedly does not own or drive an automobile. Yet he and his tribe have campaigned to dictate the
standards for transportation safety for over 30 years.

I think that one of the most telling demonstrations of where he's coming from is the very first sentence of "Unsafe at Any Speed", the book that made him famous:

"For over half a century the automobile has brought death, injury, and the most inestimable sorrow and deprivation to millions of people."

In Mr. Nader's world, cars and the companies that make them are the bringers of pain and death, and it has been his personal mission to save us from them. Our own relationship to our cars and car-makers is irrelevant.

His approach to the software industry will contain similar images of evil private entities out to victimize the consumer. Much like Mr. Gates' approach to the opposite side of the debate, the theme of his message is fear.

What we can learn from this entry into the fray is that we have a choice: we can figure out what our own truth is, or we can let Bill Gates and Ralph Nader figure it out for us.

Did you miss the letters (quoted in one of my recent newsletters) in which Nader asked Dell and IBM to offer customers a choice of operating systems and asked IBM to back OS/2 more strongly? He has taken a diversity approach. I think the description I
gave is was "naive."

What did he know about cars? Read his book "Unsafe At Any Speed." A small portion of it contains reasonable ideas he took from experts in the field. The rest is just a paranoid rant.

Example: chrome or any other polished surface should not be allowed on cars becuase sunlight reflecting off it might blind another driver.

Another example: the front edge of the hood on the 60's Ford Mustangs is too sharp and could seriously injure a pedestrian were you to run them over (news flash: two tons of rounded steel isn't going to make the pedestrian feel any better).

The truth is, Nader doesn't care about the consumer. He's not into offering choices. He wants to defeat the Big Company while at the same time dictating what's best for you the consumer.